War with the pirates of Cilicia.
By the burning of these two great towns, instigated as these acts doubtless were, in no small degree, by a lust for plunder, the Romans not merely lost, for a time, the advantages they might have derived from a continuation of the trade hitherto successfully conducted by the Carthaginian and Corinthian merchants and shipowners, but drove those of the latter class, who had saved their property, and who had no other means of subsistence, to join Mithradates, and to convert their ships, as circumstances allowed or encouraged, into ships of war, privateers, or pirates. Persons of rank and capital then embarked to an extent previously unknown in marauding expeditions, with the object either of personal gain, or of the destruction of the maritime commerce of Rome. The organization of this confederacy was of the most formidable character. They erected forts, watch-towers, arsenals, and magazines; and from Cilicia, their citadel in chief, their squadrons swept the seas. Hence their historical name of the Cilician pirates. Every merchant ship that ventured forth became either their prize or their prey. Commerce was seriously interrupted; and the citizens of Rome lost their usual supplies of corn. The piratical ships increased in numbers and in daring; they infested the coasts of Italy, plundered the temples, and even ascended the Tiber in search of spoil. At length Pompey put an end to their power, by a brilliant victory at Coracesium, and in a campaign of only forty days’ duration.[292]
B.C. 67.
First treaty with Carthage, B.C. 509.
Having cleared the seas of the ships of this confederacy, the merchants of Rome were free to carry on with more prospect of success the leading branches of a commerce which had for centuries yielded large profits to the merchants of Corinth and of Carthage. Hitherto commerce had been held an ignoble occupation for Roman citizens, nor were there apparently any facilities for its encouragement, or any advantages sought in their commercial intercourse with strangers. Indeed, in their first treaty with the Carthaginians, the earliest record of any commercial treaty, the Romans were satisfied with conditions which restricted any extension of such maritime trade as they then possessed. “Let there be friendship,” says the treaty, “between us and the Romans, together with their allies, on the following terms and conditions. Let not the Romans nor their allies navigate beyond the Fair Promontory. If they be driven by storm or chased by enemies beyond it—i.e., westward of it—let them not buy or receive anything but what is necessary for repairing their vessels, and for sacrifice; and let them take their departure within five days of the time of their landing. Whatever merchant or ship-owner may arrive on the business of merchandise let him pay no duty, except the fee of the broker and the clerk. Let the public faith be security for the seller, for whatever is sold in the presence of these officers—that is to say, whatever is sold in Africa or Sardinia. If any Romans arrive at that part of Sicily which is subject to Carthage, let them have impartial justice. Let not the Carthaginians do any injury to the people of Ardea, Antium, Laurentium, Cercii, Tarracina, nor to any of the Latins who shall be subject to Rome. Let them not attack the free towns of the Latins. If they shall take any of them, let them deliver it up to the Romans free of any damage. Let them build no fort in the land of the Latins. If they make a hostile landing in the country, let them not remain all night in it.”[293]
Its purport.
This convention gives a higher idea of the relative power of Rome at that early period, than is to be gathered from the annalists. It is clear that even then she must have had a naval force of some importance, while the Latins are distinctly called the “subjects” of Rome. It further shows very clearly how trade was then conducted. The prohibition of sailing beyond the Fair Promontory was no doubt inserted, lest, by directing their attention to maritime commerce, the Romans should deprive the Carthaginians of a portion of their valuable trade with Spain. Probably with the same view an interdiction was also placed against the Romans trading with the fertile coasts of Africa, in the vicinity of the Lesser Syrtis, showing that an occasional merchant vessel must, even at that early period, have ventured as far. But the Carthaginians were obviously at that time strong enough to dictate, to a considerable extent, their own terms, and the Romans too weak to resent this dictation.
College of merchants established, B.C. 494.
No senator allowed to own ships, B.C. 226.
It seems likely that this treaty induced the Romans to pay more attention to commercial pursuits than they had previously done, for Livy[294] states that within a few years of its execution, a college of merchants, the precise nature of which is not known, was established at Rome; centuries, however, elapsed before the State afforded any real encouragement to commercial intercourse with other countries. Indeed, as far as can now be ascertained, the supply of corn for the capital formed the chief and for ages almost the only article of commerce worthy of senatorial notice, as any scarcity in the supply of that necessary article invariably produced tumults among the people.[295] But it was only when their increasing wants obliged them to direct attention to foreign trade, that the law so far encouraged ship-building, as to exempt from municipal taxation those vessels employed in the importation of corn. Every other trade with foreign countries was restricted to a certain class of the citizens, who, with constitutional jealousy, restrained the senators from embarking in what was likely to prove highly remunerative. Quintus Claudius, a tribune of the people, proposed a law, and carried it against the Senate, Caius Flaminius alone assisting him, that no senator or the father of a senator should be proprietor of a sea-going ship of a greater capacity than three hundred amphoræ.[296] A vessel of this very limited size might be large enough to carry the produce of their own lands to market; but, in the opinion of the citizens no Roman senator ought to take part in general mercantile operations which might lead him, perhaps, to neglect his duties to the State.